MOTILAL Vs. DISTT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Jain, J. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging common judg ment and order dated 18-1-1980 passed by respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1978 with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) ONE Thakur Prasad (since deceased) filed suit No. 235 of 1974 against petitioner Moti Lal and respondents Nos. 10 to 13, Vijai Prasad, Gorakh Prasad, Har Prasad and Bharat Prasad, in writ petition No. 5403 of 1980. In pursuance to a joint application dated 29-7-74 under Section 21 of the Ar bitration Act 1940 by the plaintiff and the defendants in the said suit, the Court referred the dispute to the arbitration con sisting of Kishun Singh, Dharmdeo Singh, Garaj Narain Singh, Rishi Deo Singh, Dwarika Singh and Sarju Ram. The ar bitrators so appointed filed the award before the Court on 27-8-74. Separate ob jections under Section 33 of the Indian Ar bitration Act 1940 were filed by Motilal, defendant No. 1 (Annexure 4 to the affidavit in writ petition No. 5403 of 1980) and by defendants, Vijai Prasad, Gorakh Prasao, Har Prasad and Bharat Prasad (Annexure-3 to the affidavit in writ petition No. 3029 of 1980 ).

(3.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the appeal against the order passed by the learned Munsif was not maintainable since the applications moved by the petitioners in both the petitioners were under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. IT is further submitted that on merit also the findings of the learned Munsif were correct and in accord ance with law and, therefore, the appellate Court committed error in setting aside the findings of the learned Munsif.